At the start of the production of the UAE tanks, the armor packages volumes were similar to the french série 1 :
But at the end, they all ended up with the same armor packages volumes as our série 2 tanks :
Even old ones were retrofitted (as you can see with the apparent gap between the storage boxes) : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLeT2-6VAAAgSPh.jpg:large

As far as we can tell, there is no such thing.
Of course the UAE doesn't have the same level of protection regarding the turret and chassis.
The turret (at the end of the production) is similar to a Leclerc serie 2 while the chassis is way more protected with the extended skirt armor.

The one he is refering to is a tank hit in 2015 at the beginning of the conflict in Marib province.
The one you are refering to is last year assault on Mocha in Taiz province.
The SLAT were first seen end of last year alongside the new urban kit integrated by the germans.

Who is more qualified to talk about the actual protection of a tank than the engineers involved in the program?
As I said to your friend, there are high suspicion of corruption/lobbying in those two competitions (with actual confirmation in the case of the greek one).
The UAE trusted the data sent to them and confirmed it with live fire before the production phase entered its first step. If the tests were not confirmed they could end the contract and ask for some conterparts.
Yeah sure, stipping off armor, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
If you strip off the armor you compromise the balance of the turret. If the french did such thing you could directly see it by the position of bottom line of the skirts compared to the roadwheels... duh...
Radios is just an asset within a weapon platform... If there are falty or not good enough, you just take anything else. The integration is far more easy than what we are seeing with this hybrid made by KNDS.
So yeah... pure BS either from your part or the greek authorities...
You seem to think that weapon acquisition is fair and square "the best will be the winner".
You tend to close your eyes on the fact that lobbying is a thing and politics have their word in it also...
+1

Think what you want about Mr Chassillan, you don't know him and the way he is...
I NEVER said that it was a specificity of Giat Industries (again G.I.A.T. was the previous entity! G.I.A.T. >> Giat Industries >> Nexter...)
Weakpoints may vary in terms of angles. But regarding the driver station there always the fact that you'll have to make room for the driver to enter his station and have room for that said station.
Regarding the Leclerc hit in Yemen, that kill was just "lucky" coincidence that the missile hit that specific spot... Higher, it would have ended up in the hatch slab. Lower the full array of the glacis would have offered a better chance to the driver.
The weakspot is anything but big, that's just you who claims such thing...
It's Leclerc not LeClerc nor Le Clerc...
Yeah, sure...
Data that were never returned to the constructors...
Regarding your latest sentence, I'll just skip. Just google KMW and bribe...
Sure, sure... As if radios were inseparable of the vehicle...
In tank competitions they assess the value of the tank. If there is something elsewhere that is interesting to the customer, they just buy it and integrate it (look at the Galix system used on the STRV 122 or the CLARA on the UAE Leclerc).
The tank sent there was not lighten, at best they did not put ammo in the hull storage... And yet the tank was heavier to the regular UAE variant simply because they installed a video GAS next to the MRF laser receiver and all the instrumental tools to get a wireless monitoring of what's going on inside (see the little white antennas at the back of the turret).
They simply judge the data given to them not enough and Giat Industries.
I was refering to the faceless people that allows themself to comment on the Leclerc without having an actual experience with it. They just spread some random memes that others created to just to bad mouthing it.
And yet, in french army there are huge misconceptions (not to say memes) that are spread over time regarding the Leclerc. Some think Leclerc is a POS just because it can break down. The sad truth is that it is a vehicle that requires a high degree of technical know-how to operate properly in addition to decent preventive maintenance (again, just like any other tank). The current state with defence budget cuts, the fact that tankers don't tank all year long and the fact that maintenance is reduced to its simple expression make favorable conditions to break downs.
Some people think that we bough the ARV "as is" because the french powerpack was worthless. Yet they don't know that this decision was to save money because requalifying another chassis was expensive and time consuming... just for 20 vehicles...
And who said I only had contacts in french army...
The 3D models used by Giat Industries were old models of the prototype during aesthetic redrawal (you can see it with the commander sight). One has all the turret bustle roof equipment, the other not (most likely a provisional proposal to the requirements raised by FMV).
The FMV did a 3D model that looks similar to the Leclerc for sure. But nothing proves us that the model is "good enough" for an armor assessment as I said there is dead space that was not even taken into account on their model.
As said before, you can make drawings sign different songs depending on what your goal is. Knowing that KMW was involved in a corruption scandale in Greece doesn't exclude another one six years before hand...

The problem is the access to the hatch crank and the ergonomics to enter the driver station.
With the armor layout proposed to the swedes, there would be major ergonomic changes with the driver hatch in order to make things viable (position of the crank; cutout in the armor à la Leopard 2A5, etc).
He is just BSing just to prove the point that everybody can come up with drawing and say whatever they want...

I have reported this "leak" to Nexter and my contacts in french army.
The feed backs I have from it are far away from what I have been able to see with some photos of the dismantlement of some Leclerc or some actual CAD been leaked on some blogs.
There is nothing because it is nothing.
Not anonymous, it's Marc Chassillan. He even published in on of his article of Raids magazine.
He was not directly responsible for the Leclerc MBT but was in charge of the ARV and then became marketing director in his latest years at Nexter.
The design bureau is always well placed in terms of informations simply because engineers and marketing teams work together to achieves successful foreign sales.
Add all the claims you want to all the things you want to back your claims. Armor protection and algorythms of the FCS are THE MOST protected data and are known by a few. Things happening during international competitions are worthless.
By the way it Giat Industries not GIAT. G.I.A.T. (Groupement Industriel des Armements Terrestres) was the previous entity...
People can bullshit, other can have a deficient memory. It is just a matter of sorting them out.
In the case of Marc Chassillan, he has a good memory and don't give a damn about new customers for the Leclerc (the competition is done, the production line is disassembled and stored; and he is no longer Nexter).
Only 13 kits were bought by the UAE and they only protect the chassis sides and rear plus turret bustle sides and rear...
13 out of 93ish tanks sent there. The 13 belong to a mechanised infantry batallion, that is usually sent in the hot zones usually in urban environment but not only...
You can't just have 1000 RHAe KE all around. You always have weakspots because you need to make room for the driver, his hatch, his field of view, etc. Under the same circumstances (angle and location), the same result would have been seen on other tanks...
Despite the fact that the main charge pierced. It did not go through far... The commander got the spalls from the driver frontal episcope. Other than that the tank was recovered by its own means and sent back. The glacis was patched, the frontal episcope was changed, the interior cleaned and the tank got back in the ranks.
What was the point of your statement? "Oh! If the Leclerc was THAT great, there would be no losses..."
Grow up, nothing is inpenetrable nothing works without quirks.
To me this makes no difference. They can be high authorities or just random threadhead on the net, this change quite nothing.
What is the percentage of error while doing their CAD?
What is the method used to calculate the protection index under X angle?
To me they can do precise shit or just : "Ok this part if Xmm and this part is Ymm; knowing that X offers Amm RHAe against CE and Bmm RHAe against KE; so Y offers (A*Y/X)mm RHAe against CE and (B*Y/X)mm RHAe against KE"... and nobody is able to tell if it is actual facts or just BS.
They were given quotes; no armor compositions, no array layout...
You know "this tank is protected against X under Y and Z angles" backed by the kind of photos you've posted, armor modules with semi infinite witness plates.
The new armor layout was a response from the design bureau of Satory to the FMV's high demands. Just like any project the customer gives a need and the supplier makes propositions.
No shit Sherlock?!
And what happens if you input incorrect data (approximate volumes; wrong armor array)? You get wrong results.
Or what proof do we have that the assessment was done properly?
You make sooooo many assumptions that I don't know how to handle it to give you a proper response. I'll just make a ball of it and just dump...
You fire at a full tank only once to validate the protection models elaborated previously. The number should only be one unless you have so much money that you don't know what to do with...
Greece tested a full Leopard 2 turret for the same matter validate and check if the protection was in conformity with the specs.
Giat Industries proposed to make the Leclerc been partially produced under licence to favor the votes in their favor. Giat Industries knew that the swedish industrials that were left behind by the FMV would push this offer to the top, preserving jobs and garantying a certain authonomy.
Regarding the greek trials I'm laughing my ass off with your claims as if radios was a crucial thing, no, a corner stone(!) in the assessment done...
In addition, they've used a Leclerc tropicalised prototype (a tank that is, by design heavier than the french version), so yeah lighter tank... LMAO! You're a troll aren't you?
And this is actually a good point. Giat Industries do NOT disclose openly about the protection level. It is defended secret. You just don't come and say "Oh! I am interested in the Leclerc can I have the armor composition, pleeease?".
If there is an actual customer, the transfert of information must comply with an actual export authorisation from the french government.
And this proves, that the swedish did their thing concerning the protection... Thus, the data you have is not "vintage" it is "swedish"! End of the story!
Think what you want of me.
I have my sources of informations. And between those and a random retard coming from who knows in the internet, I'd rather believe those coming from a source that has more credibility and that is fact checkable with my contacts.
Look at the base of the turret, it is the same as the other with the "so we replaced the plastic boxes..." as opposed to the other bullshit CAD made by the swedes.
So the those black and white CAD drawings come from Giat Industries; and the other one is just a some stuff put together by the FMV...
The one with the "thin shield" is most likely the first proposition made by the french before the FMV gave their feedback.
You once again made the assumption that... Just forget it, you're wasting my time.
From now on to expect me to respond to your BS.

So what are the proofs?
Some CAD made by the swedes disclosed without any sort of nuclear response between french army or Nexter and the FMW or the guy that disclosed those slides?
That's a joke at best...
Dunno where he got the AMX 30 thingy. But clearly an engineer of Giat Industries disclosed the fact that the design bureau didn't sent the quotes in time to the Greek authorities. As a consequence the protection offered by the Leclerc was considered/judged lower compared to the other western MBTs due to their lower volumes.
We may like our tank, but we keep in mind its achilles heel. We do not claim that its protection is the absolute best in the world. But we are sure it offers an adequate protection (reinforced by what has been learnt in Yemen).
You test the armor packages when you've selected a short list of contenders.
What the swedes asked were quotes and some armor cavities to test the protection with their indigenous solutions... (what you have in the photo).
No ballistic tests have been conducted on an actual tank in France for sure. The only two were one for the french army to validate their choices and one for Giat Industries to validate their softwares in the case of repeated impacts on armor packages and structures.
Another one underwent tests in UAE to validate the choices of the UAE land forces.
No trace of a potential swedish delegation to assess the armor packages with rigorous tests on ballistic modules...
That's about it.
So you just need some random CAD drawings to say "hey that's the original armor package!".
How did they assessed the armor package in the US?
How did they made their CAD to take into account the protection offered depending on the angle of the modules?
How do they know how the packages are oriented within the turret modules?
You are the kind of guy to swallow hook, line and sinker...
Here the full armor layout of the Le Klurk for you :
The swedes asked to be able to put their own armor on the vehicle. Hence the design bureau at Satory proposed a new layout for them to have more room for their solution.
It is anything but an add-on armor on top of the legacy package modules...
The above drawing is the CAD proposed by Giat Industries to the swedish authorities (all modules are extended not the legacy ones with add-on on top...).
The engineers were not taking into account the other western MBTs when designing the Leclerc. They comply with the established specifications that took into account the latest warnings in the WarPact threats.
Weight is not evidence of efficiency.
The bigger the crew compartment, the bigger the structure (the weight of...), the bigger the modules to line the structure with...
The french approach was to design the smallest crew compartment possible while shaping the modules in such a way that you didn't have to stack armor up to the level that the roof had to be not to collide with the breech at lowest elevation while firing. All those surfaces and volumes savings made some weight reductions; all of wich were reinjected into the density of the armor. Hence the two-man-turret concept illustrated by the Leclerc.
Now think what you want.
Call me a liar if it pleases you.
But your logic is broken.

Dunno what they've done...
But for sure they left behind the car with G.I. workers and went full throttle. The technicians who were there were forced to REWORK the HULL. The suspension resisted the shock(s?) but the bolt holes were badly damaged. It took them a whole night with the tank on hydaulic lift to fix everything...
At the time, the T1s sent there were equipped with instrumental suspension to gather data. The swedes managed to go up to 1400 bars in the nitrogen spheres (STAT members, who were not gentle people, didn't even go beyond 900 bars)...
The incident got sent back to the higher ups and the president of G.I., with the support of the swedish industrials*, made a formal complaint.
* At the time rumors were circulating that the swedish army was going to adopt the Leopard 2 no matter what; swedish industrials were left behind with no options. (Sauce : "La gabegie" by Pierre Chiquet Ed. Albin Michel)

Swedish first and foremost.
You just don't give CAD and armor composition to potential customers... Otherwise, you would lose the intel warfare and give away your Achilles heel.
At best you give them quotes with protection levels but thats about it (rough estimates or minimal protection offered under certain angles).
So these drawings are what the swedish army thought the armor protection was with their best indigenous layouts.
This hasn't been made by Giat Industries for sure, the silhouette of the crew compartment should be a smaller with such angle. There is a dead space that hasn't been taken into account by the swedes.

Is that an official press organism because, some statements are pure BS.
All trials are crew based which allows to have three and four man crews without disparity in the scoring.
Nobody from French Army got sent to Graffenwöhr after the fact.
Spotting targets... they mean the SITREP trial???
It's just a dumb biathlon... They run in circle, shoot stuff. Get penalties if they miss...

E-MBT is just two parts of two MBTs duck taped together to please investors.
The REAL work is within the tank to make it work as one.
Armor is out of the windows as long as there is no confirmed customer.
If there are no customers, this vehicle may become a test bed for futur development for MGCS.

That's the specs of the engineers that worked on it.
Every modification from serie 1 to the third (SXXI) always took the balance of both gun tube and turret into consideration.
End of the story.
Sure there is no 100% percent proof but we know the mindset and means of the one who made it.